|
POPE
JOHN PAUL II's PONTIFICATE:
A
PERIOD OF GRAVEST TRIBULATION FOR THE CHURCH
A
TREMENDOUS ORDEAL
And in
the case where a "new theologian" should one day
accede to the chair of St. Peter? In such a case, the Church
undoubtedly suffers an unparalleled ordeal of stupendous gravity
and proportions. And this for several reasons.
First
of all, since it is a question of neo-modernism, "They
lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very
root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest fibers" (St.
Pius X, Pascendi). Moreover, these theological errors
are destined to profoundly influence the Catholic world, since
Catholics are quite used to the (mistaken) idea that the pope's
personal faith is identified with the Faith of the Church.
Also
to be noted is the fact that in the Catholic Church, more
than in any other society, has been borne out that old saying,
Ad instar Principis totus componitur orbis: (The whole
world falls into line with the see, the seat, of the Prince
- Peter). And for this reason, a pope is able to impose
de facto, without any formal imposition whatsoever,
a heretical orientation to the entire Church. We have witnessed
this with Pope Paul VI's "discreet" activities favoring
neo-modernism or the "new theology."
The test
we are now facing is one of tremendous proportions, but in
no way is it insurmountable. Let us proceed step by step.
KAROL
WOJTYLA AS A "NEW THEOLOGIAN"
If
Pope Paul VI proved to be an authentic admirer of the "new
theologians," John Paul II is, on the other hand, personally
quite in favor of the "new theology." Fr. Johannes
Dörmann, the famous German theologian, absorbed in thought
over the scandalous Assisi affair, has proven this to be true
in his dispassionate, objective and scientific study of Karol
Wojtyla's writings, L'étrange théologie de
Jean-Paul II (soon to be published in English by Angelus
Press with the title: Pope John Paul II's Theological
Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions at Assisi).
This
work, the first volume of a three-volume series, carefully
considers the "theology" which inspired the ecumenical
initiative of Assisi. The author finds that this same "theology"
was already clearly evident in Wojtyla's writings whether
in his capacity as professor, bishop, or cardinal. Fr. Dörmann
then sets out to demonstrate that the self-same "new
theology" constitutes the core recurring theme in John
Paul II's doctrinal encyclicals (second volume) and has also
served to inspire his pastoral trips to Africa and Asia (third
volume). We will now outline the contents of the first volume:
The
basic error in Pope John Paul II's "theology," which
serves as the foundation of his ecumenism and therefore of
the Assisi initiative, is expressed in the following: not
only did Jesus Christ die for all men [as the Catholic Church
teaches], but [and herein lies the innovation] each and every
human being is "whether he knows it or not, whether he
accepts it or not, in the faith" (K. Wojtyla, Segno
di Contradizione, chap. 11). Each is, from the very beginning,
since his birth, in a state of effective redemption even if
he is unaware of this fact. And this holds true for all men
of all ages and places.
This
thesis flies in the very face of Holy Scripture, Tradition,
as well as the Catholic Church's dogmatic teachings, and according
to Fr. Dörmann's personal judgment, has no solid base
even in the texts of the last Council. It is, on the other
hand, found to be tied in with the "new theology"
which affirms the unconditional salvation of all mankind,
a universal redemption not only objective but subjective as
well. Not only can everyone be saved, but all are, as a matter
of fact, already saved (this reminds us of Von Balthasar's
"Hell does indeed exist, but it is empty"). This
"new" conception of subjective redemption or universal
justification has served as a springboard to launch a "new"
ecclesiology together with a new concept of Revelation and
Faith.
A
NEW ECCLESIOLOGY
If the
Son of God, as Wojtyla the "theologian" would have
it, has, by His Incarnation, united Himself to "every
man," if "existence in Christ" is the religious
"dimension of every human being, of every real and historical
man" from the very first instant of his existence "whether
he wants it or not, whether he accepts it or not" (and
therefore independently of the Faith or of Baptism) is supernaturally
united to Christ, it must then follow:
1.
that every human being belongs, in some way or other, to
the {Catholic} Church;
2.
that the Church coincides with all of humanity, which, with
Christ, constitutes an organism naturally supernatural,
so to speak.
It is
evident that the resulting notion of the Church is essentially
changed under these conditions while the distinctions between
nature and grace, between Church and humanity, are utterly
destroyed. All of which, we might add, Blondel and De Lubac
were precisely aiming at all along, since the modernists,
going against the teachings of the Church considered such
a distinction as an intolerable "dualism" to be
discarded at all costs.
A
“NEW” NOTION OF REVELATION
Thus,
according to John Paul II's "new theology," there
remains no essential difference between the Church and humanity
in their "profound being" since the same "profound
being" is the very same "existence in Christ."
They can only be distinguished by the degree of awareness
they have of their profound being (this is in substance, Karl
Rahner, S.J.'s theory of "anonymous Christians"
as well as Von Balthasar's "anonymous Christianities").
And here we behold the emergence of a "new" notion
of Revelation.
Neo-modernism
would have us believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ did nothing
else than "fully manifest man to himself," not at
all by revealing to man (as the Catholic Church has always
done) his original state of sinner as well as his radical
and essential need of redemption, which he is able to attain
only through Baptism and the true Faith. Contrary to the Church's
constant teaching, modernists want to make us believe that
Our Lord came to make known to men their original state of
unconscious but automatic and real redemption, that is, their
state of being naturally "supernatural." As a matter
of fact, neo-modernism claims that it is only this state of
unconsciousness, which distinguishes the Christian from the
non-Christian. This external "revelation" of Christ
is considered to be of secondary importance and not at all
strictly necessary, since there may exist, and there also
does indeed necessarily exist, an interior revelation, common
to all men (faithful as well as infidels) and to all religions
(amongst which, therefore, we are no longer able to distinguish
the true one from the myriads of false ones).
A
“NEW” NOTION OF FAITH
In such
a fool's paradise, "faith" becomes nothing more
than a vague awareness of that which pre-exists in man, of
some innate original "supernature" implicit in human
nature. This same awareness may occur, yes, thanks to Christ's
revelation; but it also may occur and indeed does necessarily
manifest itself in the "faith" of the "anonymous
Christians" (who, therefore, are no longer infidels)
as well as in the "anonymous Christianities" (which
can no longer, therefore, be considered false religions).
THE
"THEOLOGY" OF ASSISI
It is
from such a "most admired disorder" that the "irreversible"
ecumenical dialogue has come about; a dialogue which, as we
must add, constitutes the "new" notion of mission.
From these obviously non-Christian origins appeared that scandalous
initiative of Assisi, the "spirit" of which is indeed
evident in Pope John Paul II's "new theology":
"Universal
redemption is the common base…All religions contain true revelations,
knowledge and have experience of God. Faith includes all of
the 'faithful' of all religions. Faith is faith in humanity.
But that ‘revelation offered to mankind in Christ,’ the Christian
Faith, therefore is...the faith which truly and definitively
explains the 'mystery of man,' 'the existence in Christ' [whence
comes the appeal to Christ in John Paul's final speech at
Assisi].
This
'offer' is not, however, at all necessary for salvation, nor
is it exclusive or unique. Indeed, there are also to be found
in other religions revelation, faith, and experience of God.
It is on the basis of religious liberty, of inter-faith dialogue,
together with fraternal exchanges of religious experience
with a view of mutual enrichment that can now be seen open
before us that path paved with gold leading to religious peace"
(Dormann, op. cit. pp. 150-151).
Space
prevents the publication of the entire quotation in this issue,
so we refer our readers to Fr. Dormann's work for full data
relating to this text.
BACK
TO MODERNISM
There
is no denying the fact that, with Pope John Paul II's "new
theology," we have come full circle back to modernism
which reduces the Faith (as well as Divine Revelation itself
or at least its principles) to the level of religious sense
and (religious) experience: "is it not God manifesting
Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious
sense, to the soul? ..." (St. Pius X, Pascendi).
(This helps to explain Pope John Paul II's favoring a charismatic
Church more or less based on people's feelings).
There
necessarily follows the complete elimination of all trace
of difference between natural and supernatural religion together
with the equivalence (i.e., practical equality) of all religions,
which are simultaneously able to claim to be both natural
and supernatural. According to this false line of "reasoning,"
Christianity just like the other religions which have sprung
up from religious "geniuses" would have taken its
origin not from heaven, but from Christ's religious subconscious,
"a man of exquisite nature, the like of which had never
been seen before nor will ever be seen again" (ibid.)
and from primitive Christian communities.
Revelation,
for man, is simply reduced to some consciousness of his personal
relationship with God and is common to all religions. Christian
revelation has been the awareness of this relationship for
the man Jesus; in the other religions it was for Buddha, Mohammed,
etc. As for Tradition, it does not consist in the transmission
of divinely revealed truths, but rather in the renewal of
this personal and subjective religious experience for each
and every individual in the course of time and successive
generations, and in this sense, it constitutes what is now
called a living Tradition.
As a
consequence, "some, in a thinly disguised manner, others
quite openly, hold all religions to be true…In this contest
of religions, the most that can be said in favor of the Catholic
religion is that it is the truest one," given the "exquisite
nature" of Christ; and we should bring the non-believer
to experience the Catholic religion...the same one founded
by Jesus Christ, that is to say, that product of a progressive
development of the (religious) germ which he brought to the
world" (ibid.).
"The
study of anthropology," wrote Tyrell (English leader
of modernism), "does not allow us to affirm...that God
has not gradually revealed Himself in each soul's moral and
social life and especially in Christ's soul as well as in
the life of all religions and particularly in the life of
Christianity…"
In future
times, religiosity will be the result of inductive reflection
on past and present forms of religion, of their study in so
far as they are inspired by that light of Truth which enlightens
every man coming into this world, and to the extent that each
one (of these forms) represents, in a special manner, an effort
on the part of the Divine Spirit to make himself intelligible
to man in harmony with the other degrees of his moral, mental,
and social development" (Rinnovamento, July-August
1907, "Per la sincerita").
This
provides us with a precise description of the "spirit
of Assisi," while also bringing to light those secret
motivating forces behind John Paul II's constant "pastoral"
trips to Asia and Africa (including his "ecumenical"
encounter with voodoo sorcerers).
"If
you see me traveling the length and breadth of the whole world
in my efforts to meet with people of all civilizations and
religions, it is because I have faith in the seeds of wisdom
which the Spirit has planted in the conscience of all these
various peoples, tribes and clans; from these hidden grains
will come the true resource for the future of mankind in this
world of ours" (John Paul II's speech to youth in Ravenna,
May 11, 1986, quoted in Tutte le encicliche dei Sommi Pontefici,
ed. dall'Oglio, p.1821).
THE
"MASTERS"
Which
road did Wojtyla the theologian take on the pilgrimage to
modernism? He simply followed the crooked paths and byways
of the "new theology." Those who "think they
have won" are today indeed much less discreet than they
were in former times (e.g., before Vatican II) and so, in
one of the addresses delivered at the inauguration of the
"Maurice Blondel Archives Center" affiliated with
the (formerly) Catholic University of Louvain, it is made
unmistakably clear that for Blondel "the supernatural
is not a nature to which something (grace) has been added;
it is, in reality, simply the liberation of all nature, it
is the participation in divine liberty" (Center d'Archives
Maurice Blondel. Journees d'inauguaration 30-31 mars 1973.
Textes des interventions, p. 59).
This
radical distorting and tampering with the basic Catholic notion
of supernature, consisting in a falsification obstinately
upheld and defended by modernists such as Blondel and De Lubac,
is absolutely bound to take them down that same blind alley
where John Paul II's "new theology" is to be found
at the present time: to the abolition of all distinction between
nature and grace (if the supernatural is implicit in human
nature, all men are therefore in the state of grace "whether
they know it or not, whether they accept it or not through
faith") and inevitably to the heresy of subjective universal
redemption, to the identification of humanity with the Church,
to the corruption of the idea of Revelation and of Faith,
and so on.
For example,
already for De Lubac, the manifestation of supernature being
implied in human nature and which therefore can be explained
by this same human nature turns Christ's revelation into a
fact of secondary importance, of minor interest:
"From
this it follows that strictly speaking, man does not need
another revelation to know his God: quite apart from any
supernatural
intervention, this 'natural revelation' would be quite sufficient
in itself": Sulle vie di Dio, p.210).This
quotation from a "master of modernism" serves quite
well to make us understand that the "new theology"
does indeed lay the axe "not to the branches and shoots,
but to the very root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest
fibers" (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi).
PAPAL
AUTHORITY AT THE SERVICE OF THE "NEW THEOLOGY"
This
can easily be verified by the ecumenical initiative of Assisi.
However, given the extreme gravity of this assertion, we will
now quote yet other facts which, taken in their entirety,
will be quite sufficient to dispel any lingering doubts.
Already
in the very heart of the inaugural encyclical of his pontificate
(Redemptor Hominis), John Paul II reveals his
thesis of a universal and subjective redemption which Pope
John Paul II reads into Gaudium et Spes (no.22), and
to the drafting of which he had collaborated during the Council:
"By His incarnation, He, the Son of God, has in a certain
way, united Himself with each man"(Tulle le encicliche
dei Sommi Pontifici, ed. dall'Oglio).
And now,
as if to confirm the fact that the inspiration of John Paul
II has not changed, Christoph Schonborn warns us in L'Osservatore
Romano that the "key text" of the new "Catechism"
is taken from Gaudium et Spes (no. 22) (L'Osservatore
Romano, 12-1-1993).
We have
already mentioned John Paul II's worldwide voyages. All the
ecumenical initiatives and speeches of the present pontificate
have their basis and explanation, not in Catholic doctrine,
but in the aforementioned "new theology": everything
is centered upon man and his full development which is supposed
to also comprise an awareness in himself of an immanent supernature
within each man independently of Faith and Baptism "whether
he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not by faith."
If Paul
VI chose to celebrate Teilhard de Chardin at the closing ceremonies
of the Sixth International Thomistic Congress, John Paul II
went even further still: On May 12, 1981, on the occasion
of the centennial of the birth of the monistic-pantheistic
Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin, the Secretariat of State sent
"in the name of the Holy Father" a highly laudatory
and favorable letter to the rector of the Institut Catholique
of Paris. And in this message the Pope praises "the wonderful
repercussions of his [Teilhard's] research and investigations
as well as the marked influence of his personality and the
richness of his thought." In this note, Teilhard is described
as a man seized by Christ in the depths of his being, ever
anxious to hold in high regard both faith and the answer of
reason, thereby containing almost by anticipation, John Paul's
appeal:
"Be
not afraid; open, open wide the doors to Christ, those immense
fields of culture, of civilization, of development."
All in
all, [de Chardin was] a precursor of Wojtyla's pontificate
(cf. L'Osservatore Romano, June 10, 1981, and
SI SI NO NO, June 15,1981).
And yet,
barely twenty years earlier, the Holy Office had promulgated
a monitum against Teilhard. Even though he had restrained
himself somewhat (this was at the time of John XXIII, and
Montini's influence was making itself felt), he was warned
that his writings "are full of such ambiguities, and
even of the gravest of errors, which constitute an outrageous
attack upon Catholic doctrine." And again recently, on
February 11th, 1993, Pope John Paul II sent - this time under
his own signature and always in the same line of (modernist)
thought - a public message to the Archbishop of Aix to celebrate
the centennial anniversary of the publication of Blondel's
L’Action:
"As
we recall that work, we wish, first of all, to honor its author
who, in his thoughts as well as in his life, succeeded in
blending the most rigorous critique and the most courageous
[or bold-spirited] philosophical research with the most authentic
Catholicism by drawing, as he did, from those rich sources
of dogmatic, patristic, and mystical tradition" (L'Osservatore
Romano, May 12, 1993, p.5).
This
is nothing but the posthumous ratification or approval of
Blondel's (and later on, De Lubac's) heretical pretensions
of having discovered, after a rather long lapse of two thousand
years, what is called "authentic Christianity" (cf.
Courrier de Rome, 146 [336], May 1993).
Nor is
this all. We have presented documented evidence of Blondel's
open and obstinate contempt for the Magisterium of the Church,
and have also recalled his "reflections," that is,
his (vain) attempts, which never convinced anyone, to "explain"
in an orthodox sense his own erroneous ideas in order not
to bring down upon himself the righteous censures of the Church
which would certainly have delayed as well as embarrassed
him no end (cf. Courrier de Rome, 145 [335], April
1993). Pope John Paul II, however, on this same occasion,
has nothing but praise for this modernist's "courage
as a thinker, together with his unfailing loyalty to, and
love for, the Church." And Pope John Paul II goes one
step further as he urges "today's philosophers and theologians"
to follow in Blondel's footsteps who "relentlessly pursued
his work while untiringly and obstinately (sic) explaining
his thoughts without ever repudiating their inspirations"
(cf. L'Osservatore Romano op. cit.).
THE
TACIT REPUDIATION OF HUMANI GENERIS
Under
Pope John Paul II's pontificate, the other founding fathers
of the "new theology" were able, already in their
lifetime, to bask in their share of (the modernistic) glory.
On February 2, 1983, Pope John Paul II bestowed the cardinal's
hat on De Lubac who was then almost eighty years of age. This
papal action constituted a de facto rehabilitation,
absolutely unjustified, as well as an unjustifiable repudiation
of Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis. In the
Catholic world, this was taken as a certain sign of the new
pope's "new" theological direction. On January 7,
1983, Present, a Parisian daily (newspaper) made the
following pointed observation:
"We
have often wondered for what reason Fr. Wojtyla, who had studied
theology in Rome under Pope Pius XII, had, subsequently, almost
never referred to that great pope's doctrinal teachings. The
explanation lies simply in the fact that he had theologically
chosen to follow De Lubac (one of the "fathers"
of the "new theology") rather than Pius XII. This
fact is more readily understood at the present time."
On the
occasion of the venerated Card. De Lubac's death, L'Osservatore
Romano (May 9, 1991) made public, on its first page, the
contents of two telegrams sent by His Holiness John Paul II:
the first one, to Card. Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, and
the other one to the Superior General of the Company of Jesus
(Jesuits).
The first
telegram is as follows:
"Recalling
the long and faithful service accomplished by this theologian
who succeeded in collecting and saving the best of Catholic
tradition in his meditations on the Church and the modern
world, I fervently beg Christ the Savior to grant him the
reward of His eternal peace."
And the
second telegram:
"For
many years, I had greatly appreciated the vast culture, spirit
of self sacrifice, and intellectual integrity, which have
all served to make of this model religious an outstanding
servant of the Church, particularly on the occasion of Vatican
Council II."
There
followed, on page 6, the deceased's curriculum vitae
prepared by L'Osservatore Romano's editorial
staff which, on the 8th and 11th of September, went right
on celebrating the memory of the "father" of "new
theology," previously condemned by Pope Pius XII in his
encyclical Humani Generis.
While
alive, Hans von Balthasar was glorified by Pope John Paul
II. And not only he, but also the lady whom he had described
as being his theological "better half" Adrienne
von Speyr. In 1985, with the publicity being provided by L'Osservatore
Romano, a symposium was held in Rome on Adrienne the "mystic,"
and Von Balthasar in Premessa, and Il Nostro Compito,
made it publicly known that this event constituted the realization
of a "desire expressed in 1983 by the Holy Father."
Von Balthasar himself was promoted to cardinal (June 1988)
but died on the very eve of being awarded his "well-deserved
honorary distinction" (Card. Ratzinger). However, Ratzinger
himself declared in his funeral oration:
"That
which the Pope wished to express by this gesture of gratitude
and acknowledgment or, rather, of honor, remains valid."
How can
we blame him (for publicly declaring the unvarnished truth
of the matter)? Nevertheless, it 'is' a fact that this gesture
of gratitude, or rather, of honor, on the part of the Pope,
has been addressed to the pseudo-theology of a pseudo-theologian
who has wearily trudged "along the path of sheer personal
fancy, of error, and of heresy". (cf. Courrier de
Rome, 147 (337) June 1993; for Cardinal Ratzinger's homily,
see H.W. von Balthasar, Figura e opera, p.541).
SUPREME
CONTROL OF "NEW THEOLOGIANS" OVER THE CHURCH
In 1981,
Pope John Paul II appointed the "new theologian"
from Germany, Card. Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation
for the Faith. And recently, the Pope confirmed him in this
awesome office for yet a third five-year term (lustrum).
This constitutes still one more clear and significant "gesture
of gratitude or of honor" in favor of the "new theology."
How, in these years of unparalleled crisis in the Church,
has the ex-Holy Office (Congregation of the Holy Office: founded
by Pope Paul III in 1542 "to combat heresy" - Ed.)
defended orthodoxy (belief in the true Faith founded by our
Lord Jesus Christ) against the most vicious attacks launched
with impunity by the neo- modernists? Let us go back to Card.
Ratzinger himself for an unmistakably clear answer to this
vital question:
"The
myth concerning the Vatican's severity with regard to progressive
deviations appeared as being the result of wild and useless
imaginings. Up to this very day and in no case whatsoever
have we ever resorted to, nor imposed canonical sanctions
or penalties (on anyone): we have simply limited ourselves
to admonishing the guilty wrongdoers" (keynote-speech
delivered at the Christian Episcopal Conference, cf. Courrier
de Rome, 97 [287] November 1988).
To the
"new theologians," on the other hand, Joseph Ratzinger
did guarantee effective supremacy (control) over the Church
(cf. Courrier de Rome, September 1993).
In 1985,
there was held in Rome a Synod on the occasion of the twentieth
anniversary of Vatican II (1962-1965). Still another "new
theologian," Walter Kasper, another of Ratzinger's "old
friends," was appointed (the official) theologian of
that synod. Yet Kasper openly denies the historical authenticity
as well as the reliability or trustworthiness of the Holy
Gospels. Also, "in the light of the criticisms of forms"
(or Formgeschichte), he considers that the miracles
wrought by Jesus have simply been invented, from the calming
of the tempest (Mt. 8:26) to the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn.
11), including Jesus Christ our Lord's bodily Resurrection,
Whom Kasper does not even believe to be God the Son (cf. W.
Kasper, Jesus le Christ and Courrier de Rome
105 (295) July-August 1989). In 1989, this same Kasper who
is also a member of the International Theological Commission,
was appointed Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart... without withdrawing
one iota of his formal heresies. There is no question here
of personal favors between "old comrades," or, in
any case, not only of that, but first and foremost, it is
always a question of significant "gestures of gratitude"
(or "honor") in favor of a very specific "theological"
current (i.e., modernism). Careerists (those intent mainly
on personal advancement and success in this life) know quite
well to which devil they are required to sell their souls.
COMMUNIO'S
SUPPORTER
In 1992,
under Ratzinger's patronage, a celebration took place in Rome
in commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the review
Communio, the official mouthpiece of "those who
think they have won." On May 29th, Pope John Paul II
received in audience the editors and writers from several
countries and later gave a solemn speech in which he recalled
"with gratitude the memory of two of its original promoters,
eminent theologians of catholicity: Card. Hans Urs von Balthasar,
and Fr. Henri de Lubac."
He went
on to exhort the editors of Communio to always be a
ferment of communion and of "unity in diversity"
according to the thought of Von Balthasar. In a reminiscent
mood, he confided: "In my capacity as Archbishop of Krakow,
I had the occasion of encouraging and promoting the Polish
edition (of Communio)" (cf. Communio June-July
1992). We can then well understand why De Lubac, while Paul
VI was still very much alive, used to tell his friends, "the
day when we will need a (new) pope, I have my candidate: Wojtyla"
(30Days,July 1985: Angelo Scola's interview with De
Lubac).
Space
compels us to bring this study to a close. But before doing
so, and in order to complete the overview of the present modernist
crisis, let us just mention George Cottier, official theologian
of the Papal Palace, and other Communio collaborators
who have been appointed bishops. These pass themselves off
as conservatives, when in reality they are modernists. Also,
let us consider that the nominations to the various Roman
Commissions and Congregations are introducing more and more
"new theologians" into the councils of the Church's
governing body.
Can the
reader entertain doubts to the direction, which Cardinal Wojtyla
increasingly gives to the Church? Even Civilta Cattolica"
always considered to be the indicator of the Holy See's intentions
and orientations, has transformed itself into an official
"new theology" mouthpiece. Yes, the so-called Catholic
press, from Avvenire to the small parish bulletin,
falls in (the modernist) line, for the saying goes: Ad
instar Principis totus componitur orbis (The whole world falls
in line with the see, seat, of the Prince-Peter).
OUR
PRESENT GRAVE AND FATEFUL DUTY
No wonder,
then, after having taken all these clearly substantiated and
irrefutable facts into consideration, that the current crisis
now striking the Church has been aptly compared to the Arian
crisis, which constituted “a menace for the entire Church,"
(St. Vincent de Lerins, Commonitorium). Any sound theologian
knows that papal infallibility "does not mean personal
steadfastness or firmness in the Faith," "nor does
it guarantee him some personal infallibility" (Bartmann,
Manuel de Theologie Dogmatique). Such a theologian
is also fully aware that, in the present case, papal infallibility
is completely out of the question.
Moreover,
this scholar knows full well that in Catholic theology, there
is also the question of the possibility of a "heretical
pope," which has been the object of sharp discussions
in some of the darker periods of the history of the papacy.
The present ordeal, on the other hand, is particularly intense
for those Catholics who, not being grounded in sound theology,
are long used to erroneously extending papal infallibility
to every single act of the Sovereign Pontiff, especially as
a private person. An enormous ordeal indeed, but, as we previously
remarked, not insurmountable. To overcome the scandal of the
present hour, true Catholics must hold fast to some simple
truths of the Faith:
1.
God can in no way ever contradict Himself and therefore
the Holy Ghost cannot nowadays nor at any time in the future
inspire developments in doctrine or customs in contradiction
with those He had inspired in previous times.
2.
Divine Revelation ceased definitely with the death of the
last Apostle, and for this reason neither the Church nor
the Pope can add or remove anything whatsoever from it.
3.
Neither to the Church nor to the Pope has there been promised
the revelation of new truths (and even less of contradictory
"truths"), but on the contrary, they have been
promised God's help to announce those previously-revealed
divine truths as well as in judging, on the basis of divine
revelation, any and all eventual doctrinal controversies.
Therefore no pope is able to contradict anything, which
was formerly always to be found in the "Deposit of
Faith." "To Peter's successors, the Holy Ghost
has been promised not in order that they should teach a
new doctrine through His revelation but rather, with His
assistance, that they should keep and explain in a faithful
and godly manner the revelation transmitted through the
intermediacy of the Apostles, that is to say, the Deposit
of Faith, i.e., the sum total of truths revealed by Christ,
taught infallibly by the Church, and witnessed by Scripture
and Tradition" (Vatican I Constitution De Ecclesia,
Denzinger, 1836).
4.
The divine gift of infallibility has been promised not only
to the present Pope but to all the popes of all times, and
therefore no present Pope can contradict any or all previous
popes.
5.
Infallibility is not just for the Pope but for the whole
Universal Church (that is, for the Church established throughout
the world and at all times) (cf. Vatican I, Denzinger,
1839). Therefore no pope can contradict that which, in the
Church, has always been believed, everywhere and by all
(quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est).
6.
That in any conceivable future conflict between the Pope
of today and the Popes of yesterday, between the Pope of
today and the Church of all times and places, the faithful
Catholic must remain firmly attached to the Popes of all
time as well as to the Faith of the universal Church as
St. Thomas Aquinas rightly teaches (Summa Theologica,
Part IIa IIae, Question 2, article 3).
The above
basic truths are put forward to sincere Catholics by their
sensus fidei as well as their common sense. We may
also add that whenever a pope, instead of keeping and proclaiming
divinely-revealed Truth which has always been taught since
the beginning of the Church, sets out to follow his own erroneous
personal opinions which contradict this Truth, he is not at
that moment acting in his capacity as pope. It thus follows
that he may neither lawfully require others to obey him (in
his errors) nor may the faithful be obliged to follow him
in his errors.
This
may grieve us, but should come as no surprise. The exact notion
of infallibility does not, in fact, exclude the possibility
of such an unfortunate and tragic circumstance. The divine
gift of infallibility simply means that God's active assistance
will, with the greatest possible certitude, prevent any pope
from imposing formally, ex cathedra, his own
errors upon the whole Church, although he may attempt to impose
them in fact if not formally (through speeches, writings,
acts of his administration, etc).
When,
in the course of Vatican I, the final drafting of the Constitution
on Papal Infallibility was presented to the bishops, the official
and chief editor, Bishop Gasser of Bressanone clearly explained
its exact meaning: "If the entire Church should ever
face the danger of being led astray through the bad faith
and negligence of a pope... Christ's vigilance... would prevent
an infallible declaration (Si per malum fidem et negligentiam
pontificis, universalis ecclesia in errorem induci possit...
tutela Christi...iudicium tale impediretur, Mansi 52, col.
1212-1214).
Papal
infallibility, therefore, does not at all guarantee that the
Faith of the whole world will never be exposed to danger by
the "negligence" or even by the "bad faith"
of one of Peter's successors, but only guarantees that the
tutela Christi (the divine assistance) will
prevent an infallible declaration, ex cathedra, in
such deplorable and unfavorable circumstances. Just as it
has, in fact, happened in the present crisis, beginning with
Vatican II, which, the Pope assured during the Council, was
to be simply of a "pastoral" nature (and not doctrinal
as were all the twenty other Ecumenical Councils).
And this
is why theologians (we refer here only to true and sound theologians)
know that papal infallibility has absolutely nothing to do
with the present crisis in the Church. This fact does not,
of course eliminate the terribly harsh and cruel ordeal presently
inflicted upon the faithful sons and daughters of the Church
who, in order to save their souls, must maintain their own
Faith intact in spite of the hardships and difficulties in
these tragic times. And we must admit that these circumstances
depend upon the one presently occupying Peter's Chair. These
faithful souls must also now prove their fidelity to Jesus
Christ as well as to His Church (which is not at all to be
identified with the personal theological theories of a pope).
Today's
tragedy will prove to be even graver still for the young who
risk knowing only "a false 'Christian' religion, which
is far removed from the true Church of Christ" (Pius
XI's encyclical Mortalium Animos, which constitutes
an early papal condemnation of the present-day false ecumenism).
The gravity
of the hour therefore imposes equally grave obligations upon
one and all, each according to his state of layman, priest,
theologian, bishop, cardinal or pope. Beyond our solemn duties
of prayer and penance (so insistently asked for by the Immaculate
Mother of God at Lourdes and Fatima) we are all duty-bound
to oppose the current modernistic ecclesial direction by resolutely
defending not only our own Faith, but also that of our brethren
in Christ. To this end, each person must, according to his
means, come now to the aid of the Church and even remind (if
one's own state in life provides the occasion and even more
so if it demands it) the present Pontiff to carry out his
papal duties in accordance with his high office (cf. Col.
4:17).
All of
this constitutes a grave duty of charity. Failing in these
sacred duties would be equivalent to mortal sin, and to act
otherwise would be tantamount to betraying Christ yet once
again. Such a betrayal endangers one's own as well as other
souls' eternal salvation whilst making oneself a wretched
collaborator in the "self-destruction" of the Church.
Hirpinus
(to be continued)
Translated
from Courrier de Rome, October 1993
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)
|
